The ability of any government to provide healthcare services to its citizens is one of the major reasons why governments are put in place. One of the underlying reasons that have come to define the US politics is the issue of healthcare service provision, which arguably was the primary reason why the Obama administration came into power. The US healthcare system is thus one of the well-enhanced healthcare systems in the world. This paper discusses the advantages that the US healthcare system harbors over the Canadian healthcare and the UK healthcare systems.
Advantages of the US Healthcare System
The current US healthcare system is a culmination of longstanding research in the provision of healthcare services. The healthcare system provides mechanisms that ensures that every member and organization in the country contribute in accordance to their capacity towards the provision of healthcare services. Unlike in Canada and UK where much of the bulk is left to the government and a few organizations that employ a large number of people, the US healthcare system provides mechanisms that ensure that even small businesses contribute in accordance to their annual incomes towards the provision of healthcare services (Rodwin, 2010).
Another advantage is the level of regulation that the US healthcare system provide for the activities of the physician. This is revealed in the assessment of the experience of Professional Standards Review Organizations. The regulation of physician activities in the US is far much stronger when compared to that in Canada and the UK, which are the most well developed healthcare systems in the world (Fierlbeck, 2011). This is because the US’s healthcare system provides antitrust policies that promote growth in health sector. The system ensures that physicians and hospitals do not have monopoly powers and thus eliminate restraint on trading heath care services through mechanisms such as advertising. Thus, what the system provides is a restrain on healthcare providers to negotiate directly with the government for the provision of healthcare services. As such, the antitrust policy provides mechanisms that ensure that competition among healthcare service providers are healthy and aimed at benefiting the patient.
Similarly, the US healthcare system provides a divide and rule approach that ensures that the negotiation for the cost of healthcare services are in tandem with the services that are provided. This is unlike the Canadian and the UK healthcare systems that bring together different healthcare providers and present them with accommodative corporation. In essence, the two systems allow healthcare providers to give services that are well above the affordable levels of people whose earnings are below the poverty index (Rodwin, 2010). In the process, the government is forced to subsidies the costs of these people thus the large percentage of public funding that is a characteristic of healthcare services in Canada and the UK. The healthcare system in the US put constraints for individual payers like private insurance companies and Medicare to limit payment to physicians and other healthcare units. This promotes competition among the healthcare service providers.
A further advantage of the US healthcare system over the Canadian and the UK healthcare systems is the healthcare services are decentralized in the US. The federal government only makes invention through Acts that are adopted by States and may be amended to meet the specific needs of each State (Rodwin, 2010). In Canada and the UK, the healthcare systems are highly centralized, which means that specific provinces or countries in the case of the UK cannot have policies that meet the healthcare needs of the people. Greater decentralization and constant social testing characterize the US healthcare system. For instance, the array of variation between state-run Medicaid programs in the US is far greater than the variation between provincial health policies in Canada and the UK. This gives greater discretion at the State level and a variety of government programs at the county and municipal levels.
Additionally, the US healthcare policy is subdivided into four areas that are instrumental in ensuring that every person contributes to healthcare services. The four areas include the subsidy strategy that requires the federal government to give grants to the suppliers of healthcare services. This is important in ensuring that there is a continuous availability of healthcare services across the country from the grassroots to the national level. Secondly, there is the financing area that includes the thirty-party financing on the side of demand. The third area involves the reorganization of healthcare providers in order to enable them to offer healthcare services in an enhanced environment that support their activities. The fourth area is the regulation of the healthcare industry through policies and reforms that are geared towards improving the services of physicians through reasonable pricing and quality of services. The government also ensures that locations of healthcare facilities, both in public and in private sector, are accessible enough to the patients through regulations. Unlike in UK and Canada, the US healthcare system allows the federal government to influence directly the location and size of healthcare facilities in the country (Rodwin, 2010).
Therefore, the healthcare system in the US gives the government greater control power thus allowing for the achievement of high levels of implementation of policies and regulations. This has enabled the national health insurance to avoid barriers of financing and implementation, which in itself has not been addressed by the Canadian and the UK healthcare systems (Greener, 2008). The US healthcare system is therefore instrumental in circumventing the disparities that may occur in the use of healthcare facilities across the country by different social classes. In essence, the system ensures that everyone has access to the healthcare services irrespective of their social and cultural status across the country.
The Canadian and the UK healthcare systems are among the highly established healthcare systems in the world (Fierlbeck, 2011). However, their kind of system focuses so much to the provision of services to the patient to the extent that the physician and other healthcare providers are left without any profit for their work. The US healthcare system combines the need to have a profitable healthcare center with quality services to the patient. This allows for the expansion in the role that physicians and private healthcare facilities play in ensuring that there is affordable and accessible healthcare services across the country. Feynberg (2011) argues that the Canadian cost-control healthcare system has led to the deterioration of healthcare services through its imposition of restrictive prospective budgets for medicals services thus jeopardizing the quality of care, administrators, and healthcare providers.
The US healthcare system is arguably less intensive compared to those in Canada and UK. The system is definitely a complex one, which means that it can slow down the process of service delivery and which provides many policies and regulations that curtain the provision of quality services to the people. Nevertheless, the US healthcare system has heavily borrowed from other well-established healthcare systems across the world thus making it one of the well-polished healthcare systems in the world. Evidently, much of the strategies that the system uses are a culmination of continued consultation by different stakeholders in the health sectors lead by the federal government. The government has therefore been on the forefront to ensure a healthcare policy that will ensure that every person in the country regardless of whether he or she is employed gets access to quality healthcare services. The system therefore exhibit internal advantages that cannot be found in the healthcare systems in the UK and Canada.